Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why the comments here. And the fact that you can only defend the Democrats with a fallacy of relative privation only proves it. You guys are horrified of a Pete Buttigeig nomination.
The comments here have nothing to do with him being gay. FWIW, I have no issues with Buttigeig. At this point I am undecided on who I will vote for in the Primary, but wouldn't have an issue if he is the nominee.
Also, the point regarding who elects people who are gay to the House, Senate Governor, etc is a relevant one. The amount on the GOP side is well, zero..
Are you claiming Buttigieg is a "dimwit?" The guy who learned Norwegian (along with the 7 other languages he knows) because he wanted to read a book in Norwegian, he's Rhodes Scholar, volunteered for a tour in Afghanistan when he did not need to go near the place, turned the course of a town around?
Really? You think Buttigieg is a "dimwit"? The guy is brilliant, articulate and can answer every single question put to him on policy. You want to put him up against the 'stable genius' who cannot speak or write English?
Setting a president? Oranges of immigration policy? Covfefe?
Please. Don't insult our intelligence. Trump is the only dimwit running for president. And the biggest one.
Yes, he's obviously much smarter than Trump.
But if we want real change, we cant keep on electing people like Buttigieg who is funded by the ultra rich. The middle class isnt vanishing because the people in Congress and the elites who fund them are stupid. The middle class is vanishing by design. The moneyed elite want it all and they fund their candidates to get their way. We need to find the guts to elect people with a solid track record of not taking bribe money from the corporate elites.
Are you claiming Buttigieg is a "dimwit?" The guy who learned Norwegian (along with the 7 other languages he knows) because he wanted to read a book in Norwegian, he's Rhodes Scholar, volunteered for a tour in Afghanistan when he did not need to go near the place, turned the course of a town around?
Really? You think Buttigieg is a "dimwit"? The guy is brilliant, articulate and can answer every single question put to him on policy. You want to put him up against the 'stable genius' who cannot speak or write English?
Setting a president? Oranges of immigration policy? Covfefe?
Please. Don't insult our intelligence. Trump is the only dimwit running for president. And the biggest one.
This is not the way to judge a candidate, however. I'm sure we could find some academic who speaks more languages than Pete. Woodrow Wilson was our only PhD president and was an absolute disaster. He started the war on drugs (Harrison Act), the notion of USA as world police (WWI), the federal police state (FBI genesis during his terms) and jailed people for passing out anti-war pamphlets (Schenk case).
George McGovern in 1972 was the only other PhD presidential candidate as far as I know. McGovern had a PhD in history. He lost 49 states to Nixon. Years later, as a small businessman, he admitted that much of his ideas when he was in politics had been wrongheaded. https://www.businessinsider.com/shou...inesses-2009-5
Smash, I'm going to presume you are very young. A few years back it seemed every couple of months there was a scandal of a republican legislator being busted for some sort of gay activity. The one I remember involved a guy tapping his feet in an airport bathroom.
I formed the opinion that power brokers promoted these guys so they would have a political puppet who would vote as they wished. Guess this doesn't work as well now that the stigma is reduced.
There's still Mitch McConnell. Does he not ping anyone's gaydar?
They just don't elect anyone who is open which was my point. The one you are referring to with the tappy foot in the bathroom was former Idaho Senator Larry Craig.
This is not the way to judge a candidate, however. I'm sure we could find some academic who speaks more languages than Pete. Woodrow Wilson was our only PhD president and was an absolute disaster. He started the war on drugs (Harrison Act), the notion of USA as world police (WWI), the federal police state (FBI genesis during his terms) and jailed people for passing out anti-war pamphlets (Schenk case).
George McGovern in 1972 was the only other PhD presidential candidate as far as I know. McGovern had a PhD in history. He lost 49 states to Nixon. Years later, as a small businessman, he admitted that much of his ideas when he was in politics had been wrongheaded. https://www.businessinsider.com/shou...inesses-2009-5
But, businessmen have mostly failed at the presidency (Harding, Hoover).
I'll take the smart guy over the ex-CEO dictator any day.
Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar, and a very intelligent guy--he presided over a great economy, after he was handed a recession, and 8 years of peace and prosperity.So being academically smart is probably not as much of a 'handicap' as being a businessman.
McGovern was an idealogue. Trump is a demagogue. We need a very smart, pragmatic president to clean up after Trump.
He seems more 'energized' than some of the other candidates. He's young. He's a vet (which isn't a 'make or break' for me, but I do tend to mentally 'add points' for that), and he's self-taught himself several languages, which shows intellectual curiosity. All pluses in my book.
Con: Being mayor of South Bend, Indiana, is a far cry from the world stage that is the office of POTUS. I think if Buttigieg added "Senator" or "Governor" to his resume and tried again in, say, 2028, he'd be much more of a powerhouse, because now he could add 'experience' to the list of pros above. (I know I say this knowing we have a completely inexperienced person occupying the OO, but that might be as good an argument as any to want somebody with a little more knowledge of the workings of the national stage under his belt in the job.)
Neither a pro nor con for me, but could see where it could be a problem: His sexuality. It doesn't matter to me, but as I've said elsewhere, while the U.S. is becoming more open to this, I would be concerned if it's open *enough*. Granted, my state just recently elected an openly gay man as governor, so there's a *chance*, but Colorado is not the whole of the U.S.
If he gets the nomination, I'll be happy to vote for him. And he may stand a decent enough shot at it. We'll have to see how everything plays out.
I doubt he’d be getting the same amount of attention if he was straight. He’s gone from nobody has heard of him before to articles about how his partner would be the first husband if he ran for president and won. That’s quite the leap.
It’s the same type of pandering we see when a woman or minority accomplishes something that many others have accomplished, but they’re written about as though they’ve walked on water.
I guess people have such low expectations for some members of society, that doing what many others have done puts them in an elite category. It’s offensive.
I disagree. He seems to be someone with ideas that really resonate with people. And they like his manner.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beach Sportsfan
He would be better than the one in office now.
So would 90% of prominent Democrats. Damned with faint praise.
He seems more 'energized' than some of the other candidates. He's young. He's a vet (which isn't a 'make or break' for me, but I do tend to mentally 'add points' for that), and he's self-taught himself several languages, which shows intellectual curiosity. All pluses in my book.
Con: Being mayor of South Bend, Indiana, is a far cry from the world stage that is the office of POTUS. I think if Buttigieg added "Senator" or "Governor" to his resume and tried again in, say, 2028, he'd be much more of a powerhouse, because now he could add 'experience' to the list of pros above. (I know I say this knowing we have a completely inexperienced person occupying the OO, but that might be as good an argument as any to want somebody with a little more knowledge of the workings of the national stage under his belt in the job.)
Neither a pro nor con for me, but could see where it could be a problem: His sexuality. It doesn't matter to me, but as I've said elsewhere, while the U.S. is becoming more open to this, I would be concerned if it's open *enough*. Granted, my state just recently elected an openly gay man as governor, so there's a *chance*, but Colorado is not the whole of the U.S.
If he gets the nomination, I'll be happy to vote for him. And he may stand a decent enough shot at it. We'll have to see how everything plays out.
But what about actual policy and who his donors are/who he'll serve?
Mainstream media loves to talk about everything else than actual policy, but we shouldnt fall into that trap IMO.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 22 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,550 posts, read 16,539,320 times
Reputation: 6033
Quote:
Originally Posted by travis t
FDR, Ike, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Clinton all cheated. It is wrong, but is neither here nor there regarding their performance as president. FDR is ranked 3 by the CSPAN survey of historians, and Ike is ranked 5.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 22 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,550 posts, read 16,539,320 times
Reputation: 6033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckeye77
You need to look up what the term "virtue signaling" means. It isn't what you think
so define what i means then.
this is what Google Dictionary link says
Quote:
the action or practice of publicly expressing opinions or sentiments intended to demonstrate one's good character or the moral correctness of one's position on a particular issue.
so based on this, the phrase "virtue signaling" is the equivalent of yelling "know-it-all"
Virtue signaling may be annoying, but it isnt in and of itself wrong, so it means exactly what I said.
Quote:
I fully support LGBT rights, but it is pathetic to promote a candidate based solely on sexual orientation.
Im sure there are people doing that, but the context here is viability since many have previously said they would never vote for a candidate who wasnt straight.
You cant argue everything in a vacuum or pretend everyone you dislike is only mentioning something because of "identity politics"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Trump is the only dimwit running for president. And the biggest one.
